Scarborough: IRS scandal could derail background checks...

[Dave Workman]

Could the IRS scandal derail public support for background checks?

During Thursday morning’s remote broadcast from a deli at Bellevue’s Factoria Square, KVI talk host John Carlson referred to stunning remarks made a few days ago by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough regarding background checks, and how the current Internal Revenue Service scandal – made worse Wednesday by Lois Lerner’s non-testimony – could raise alarms about too much government intrusion into individual privacy.

<broken link removed>




Scarborough is on to something here....

Read More

 

[PiratePast40]

I agree that this adds fuel to the fire. Doesn't matter if it's a high level policy or a few disgruntled employees wishing to champion their own political opinions. The possibility of abuse of authority and violation of trust is very real. With so many politicians saying that registration and confiscation is their ultimate goal, doesn't take much of a leap to imagine an employee or contractor "accidentally" taking lists home on a thumb drive or passing that drive off to a reporter. It's easy to imagine one of the fawn eyed lower level surfs wishing to impress the royalty and gain favor by "accidentally" allowing information to be made public.

Note that I added "contractor", since the proposed laws only makes it illegal for federal government employees to maintain a registry. Says nothing about contractors, state, or local employees.

 

[Kevinkris]

i have to say though, attacking the fact that she invoked her 5th amendment right is a bit low ball. granted she had already admitted to many other fallacies, she is entitled to stop speaking at some point. she may very well be innocent and simply whistle blowing for our sake. pleading the 5th does not make you guilty.

 

[DMax]

Those that hide nothing have nothing to hide.

 

[BigStick]

I think the multitude of "scandals" Obama is dealing with right now are all forceing people to start aknowledgeing the govenment corruption. I really hope people start replaying over and over all of the times where Obama promissed to be the most transparent administration in history.

 

[Burt Gummer]

The FBI is busy covering their Boston tracks. Couple days ago the 'pulled the knife' guy - laughable - and now two agents involved in the arrest (directly) fell out of a helicopter to their death. Plugging up the holes so to speak. They gotta do what they gotta do. Kind of distracting though.

Like watching the Sopranos.

 

[Stomper]

Oh, gee willikers... the MSM "elites" never EVER had a problem with ANYTHING that Progressive elements within government have foisted upon us "common folk". Now that the DOJ has "turned on" them with all those phone record confisfactions they're suddenly "alarmed" about intrusive, tyrannical government?

These suppossedly "learned journalists" never thought for one second that communists/socialists would-be dictators wouldn't turn on them when it suited their needs? Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Pol Pot did it, Mao did it, the North Korean "IL dynasty" did it, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You know... I ALMOST wish the country would fall, just so I could see the looks on their stupid, smarmy, ignorant, AROGANT faces as they are rounded up and marched off to their deaths at the hands of the "government saviors" like the useful idiots that they are.

The only thing I would say to Scarborough... Welcome to the party, pal!

 

[oknow]

this is a big dog and pony show just like f&f NOTHING will come from it.

 

[NWGlockgal]

Unfortunately the public-and especially liberals-have very short memories. I hope this helps block back ground checks but I have my doubts.

 

[Kevinkris]

Those that hide nothing have nothing to hide.

i see time and time again where people from this forum recommend not speaking to the police without a lawyer present and after consulting with that lawyer, whenever they have fired their weapon in self defense. dont you think it would be a bit hypocritical to deny that same right to a person who has openly stated that there was something wrong with the way the IRS was treating people? she could have been a person acting under duress thinking she would loose her job (which is her livelihood) if she were to refuse. information on the scandal broke out and she had an opportunity to speak out about it. then exercise her 5th amendment rights to keep from incriminating herself.

now with that being said, there is a good chance that is way wrong but without proof she is innocent until proven guilty. we need to be consistent with our views of constitutional rights and not deny them when it is convenient.

 

[Mark W.]

Welcome to the second term LOL

 

[PiratePast40]

Yes, there is allways controversy when a public official takes the fifth. But I think you're missing the main point. This has little to do with her testimony, it has everything to do with what actually happened. You can concentrate all day on her actions before Congress but that doesn't change the fact that there was an absolute abuse of power. The White House purposely looked the other way and the major players in the IRS knew about the issus long ago.

 

[Kevinkris]

Yes, there is allways controversy when a public official takes the fifth. But I think you're missing the main point. This has little to do with her testimony, it has everything to do with what actually happened. You can concentrate all day on her actions before Congress but that doesn't change the fact that there was an absolute abuse of power. The White House purposely looked the other way and the major players in the IRS knew about the issus long ago.

it still does not mean she has not right to remain silent if she feels it may incriminate her. she may very well have been deeply involved but the right is still hers to claim.

 

[9MilMan]

For those of you who think Ms. Lerner may be innocent, I suggest you research her performance at the FEC.

IRS's Lerner Had History of Harassment, Inappropriate Religious Inquiries at FEC | The Weekly Standard

 

[Kevinkris]

thats not my point, she still has rights that cannot be denied to her.

 

[mancat]

thats not my point, she still has rights that cannot be denied to her.

Yep, and while I agree with you in practice, when your job is to oversee a function of the government that is supposed to be transparent and accountable, you should probably not be in a situation in the first place where you have to plead the fifth. Not only did she plead the fifth, but she immediately began offering anecdotal testimony in an effort to explain her decision to plead the fifth, and began offering a light defense of herself and her innocence. You can't have it both ways - you either plead the fifth and stop there, or you talk. This is pretty damning in itself.

 

[Kevinkris]

it still doesnt do any justice to the situation by attacking the 5th amendment.

 

[Dave Workman]

i have to say though, attacking the fact that she invoked her 5th amendment right is a bit low ball. granted she had already admitted to many other fallacies, she is entitled to stop speaking at some point. she may very well be innocent and simply whistle blowing for our sake. pleading the 5th does not make you guilty.

Well, she may have blown it by making her little speech before invoking the 5th. Trey Gowdy, whom I have interviewed 2 or 3 times, had it pegged when he said so. Gowdy's a bright guy and he knows the law pretty darned well.

 

[Dave Workman]

it still doesnt do any justice to the situation by attacking the 5th amendment.

Nobody is attacking the 5th amendment.
They're being critical of the hypocrisy here. She consulted with an attorney and the room was full of them. She made her little defense speech and then essentially told the committee that she had no intention of answering their questions. It's a symptom of an administration full of people who think they are above the law.

 

[Kevinkris]

Nobody is attacking the 5th amendment.
They're being critical of the hypocrisy here. She consulted with an attorney and the room was full of them. She made her little defense speech and then essentially told the committee that she had no intention of answering their questions. It's a symptom of an administration full of people who think they are above the law.

kinda sounds like she was still exercising her 5th amendment right. im not defending what she likely did but the right is there and she is still entitled to it. attacking her for using it, is the same as attacking that right.